Frank Nestel wrote:
>[...]
>
>
>For a short moment I considered marshalling this extra info into XML or
>at least text. But this means an considerable overhead and another
>developers inconvenience. It should be possible to have a different kind
>of Field which holds a Serializable Object just stored, untokenized and
>unindexed just for retrieval together with other document data.
>Probably there might be other applications where even unstored Fields
>of that kind would make sense, but tokenizing should be impossible. And
>I do not want to dream here about what one could do if indexing was
>possible.
>
What's preventing you from doing this now? I think you could declare a
stored / untokenized / unindexed field. Maybe the problem is that it has
to contain a string, whereas serialized objects should really be stored
as byte[]. Is that the deal?